2014 (9) TMI 1113 - HC - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - inputs - whether the Hon ble Tribunal is correct in allowing the clearance of inputs as such which are procured from other manufacturers by the respondent to 100% EOU without payment of duty or without reversal of CENVAT credit availed on said inputs contrary to the condition of the N/N. 22/2003-C.E., dated 31-3-2003 requiring the 100% EOU to procure the excisable goods directly from factory of manufacture - Held that - the assessee is entitled to relief under the statutory rules viz., Rule 19(2) of the CER - The Tribunal went beyond the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and held in favour of the assessee insofar as the issue of limitation was concerned - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 22/2003-C.E. regarding clearance of inputs to 100% EOU without payment of duty.
2. Application of Tribunal decision in a similar case involving capital goods to the current case involving inputs.

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the interpretation of Notification No. 22/2003-C.E. The Tribunal allowed the clearance of inputs to a 100% EOU without payment of duty, contrary to the condition of the notification requiring direct procurement from the factory of manufacture. The Tribunal based its decision on the assessee's entitlement to relief under Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules. The High Court found that the Tribunal's decision was in line with the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, even though the previous case dealt with capital goods, not inputs. As a result, the High Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, ultimately dismissing the appeal.

2. The second issue involves the application of a Tribunal decision in a case concerning capital goods to the present scenario involving inputs. The Tribunal had relied on a previous decision in the case of Solectron Centum Electronics Ltd. v. CCE (Appeals), Bangalore, where capital goods were involved. However, in the current case, the goods in question were inputs procured, with duty paid and cleared to a 100% EOU without reversing the credit availed. Despite this difference, the Tribunal extended the benefit of the previous decision to the current case. The High Court, after considering the Tribunal's findings and the statutory rules, upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that no substantial question of law was raised.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in both issues, finding no merit in the appeal and dismissing it without any costs. The judgment highlights the importance of statutory rules and previous case law in interpreting and applying notifications and decisions related to customs, excise, and service tax matters.